How would these weapon properties stack up against each other?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm contemplating adding "martial only" weapon properties, moving the "bare numbers boost" from fighting styles into the weapons themselves (but only for martial types). Barbarians, fighters, rogues, paladins, rangers, and monks get a level 5 feature that "turns on" the special properties of certain weapons.

The big ones are
Accurate: Add +1 to the attack roll.
Arcing (X): When you hit with an attack and there is an enemy within your reach that the original attack roll would hit, that other creature takes X damage.
Reliable (X): When you miss with an attack, the target takes X damage regardless.
Wounding (X): When you hit with an attack, turn any die result lower than X into X (so Wounding (2) would turn any 1s into 2s and Wounding (3) would turn 1s and 2s into 3s).

Are they roughly on par one with another for similar values of X (X for wounding has to be bigger than for the others to get any effect, so Wounding(2) is supposed to be similar to Reliable (1))?


It's mostly martial weapons, but some simple weapons. The idea is to differentiate "similar" weapons. Anything not mentioned doesn't get a special property.

Greatclub: Reliable (2)
Light Hammer: Reliable (1)
Mace: Reliable (2)
Sickle: Wounding (2)

Battleaxe: Arcing (2)
Flail: Reliable (2)
Glaive: Wounding (2)
Halberd: Arcing (2)
Longsword: Wounding (2)
Maul: Reliable (3)
Morningstar: Wounding (2), reliable (1) (*)
Pike: Accurate
Rapier: Accurate
Scimitar: Wounding (2)
Shortsword: Accurate
Trident: Accurate
War Pick: Accurate, Reliable (1) (*)
Warhammer: Reliable (2)
Whip: Wounding (2)
Heavy Crossbow: Wounding (2)
Longbow: Accurate

Generally, "slashy-type" weapons (roughly) get wounding, "hacky-type" weapons get arcing, "smashy-type" weapons get reliable (even something deflected still hurts), and "stabby-type" weapons get accurate (more likely to find a weak spot in armor). It doesn't map exactly to damage type but more the aesthetics of the weapon.

(*) these get two smaller properties because they're kinda a mix of two other types. And since they don't get versatile, they're already at a small disadvantage.

Others:
Blowgun, Hand Crossbow: Stealthy (missed attacks don't break stealth)

[animorte]

I'm thinking X should scale with proficiency, that way no other resources need to be actively used for progression through all tiers of play.

One thing I'm looking out for is checking the clarification on things like Sneak Attack and Divine Smite. You should only ever be able to affect an enemy on legitimate hit (so Reliable and Arcing don't get out of hand).


The big ones are
Accurate: Add +1 to the attack roll.
Arcing (X): When you hit with an attack and there is an enemy within your reach that the original attack roll would hit, that other creature takes X damage.
Reliable (X): When you miss with an attack, the target takes X damage regardless.
Wounding (X): When you hit with an attack, turn any die result lower than X into X (so Wounding (2) would turn any 1s into 2s and Wounding (3) would turn 1s and 2s into 3s).
Accurate is just a solid boost, nothing out of the ordinary, but nobody says no to a +1. Scaling with PB might be too strong since you would already be adding PB to attack roll.
Arcing is easily the most niche. It requires you to be adjacent to two enemies at one time. Of course if you're building for it and consistently get yourself into that position, it has the highest damage potential.
I think Reliable is the best. You will always contribute damage no matter what the dice have to say about it.
Wounding is a good idea, already implemented in a couple areas. I think scaling with PB could only become a concern when the PB exceeds the weapon die itself.

Generally, "slashy-type" weapons (roughly) get wounding, "hacky-type" weapons get arcing, "smashy-type" weapons get reliable (even something deflected still hurts), and "stabby-type" weapons get accurate (more likely to find a weak spot in armor). It doesn't map exactly to damage type but more the aesthetics of the weapon.
This almost aligns with B/P/S damage types. I was originally going to suggest that be the case, but it doesn't make sense as well as you have laid it out, as you already stated.

Others:
Blowgun, Hand Crossbow: Stealthy (missed attacks don't break stealth)
I absolutely love Stealthy.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm thinking X should scale with proficiency, that way no other resources need to be actively used for progression through all tiers of play.

One thing I'm looking out for is checking the clarification on things like Sneak Attack and Divine Smite. You should only ever be able to affect an enemy on legitimate hit (so Reliable and Arcing don't get out of hand).


Accurate is just a solid boost, nothing out of the ordinary, but nobody says no to a +1. Scaling with PB might be too strong since you would already be adding PB to attack roll.
Arcing is easily the most niche. It requires you to be adjacent to two enemies at one time. Of course if you're building for it and consistently get yourself into that position, it has the highest damage potential.
I think Reliable is the best. You will always contribute damage no matter what the dice have to say about it.
Wounding is a good idea, already implemented in a couple areas. I think scaling with PB could only become a concern when the PB exceeds the weapon die itself.

This almost aligns with B/P/S damage types. I was originally going to suggest that be the case, but it doesn't make sense as well as you have laid it out, as you already stated.

I absolutely love Stealthy.

I've actually reconceptualized these slightly (Because variable scaling was annoying me).

New form (scaling with proficiency bonus):

- Accurate: Add a +1 modifier to the attack roll for weapon attacks made with this weapon.
- Arcing: When you hit with a weapon attack using this weapon, a second creature within your reach that the attack roll would hit takes damage of the weapon's type equal to your proficiency bonus as well.
- Reliable: When you miss with a weapon attack using this weapon, the target takes damage equal to half your proficiency bonus regardless.
- Wounding: When you hit with a weapon attack using this weapon and the amount rolled on any die is less than half your proficiency bonus rounded up, treat it as if it was half your proficiency bonus rounded up.

Rounding up on Wounding is important because it means you actually benefit before level 9 (3 / 2 round up is 2 when it starts at level 5). Arcing got extra damage to compensate for being more situational.

As to sneak attack/divine smite, I would rule that they are not "hit" by the weapon in that case enough to trigger the extra damage. Although Sneak Attack is less worry-some for Arcing, since it's 1x/turn anyway.

[animorte]

Rounding up on Wounding is important because it means you actually benefit before level 9 (3 / 2 round up is 2 when it starts at level 5). Arcing got extra damage to compensate for being more situational.
That's a good call, I was starting to think the same.

As to sneak attack/divine smite, I would rule that they are not "hit" by the weapon in that case enough to trigger the extra damage. Although Sneak Attack is less worry-some for Arcing, since it's 1x/turn anyway.
Thats true. Good observation.

[GeneralVryth]

While I very much like the idea of making weapons more involved, and some level of mastery beyond basic proficiency, I wonder if this is only going half way there.

First, in terms of enabling the mastery I would think in terms of weapon groups instead of individual weapons.

Second, I would have the mastery contain both a passive and active effect. For the passive effects this seems like a good start, and some fighting style adaptations may work as well. For the active effect I would make it either once per short rest, or once per initiative roll, and probably on a power level similar to a battle master maneuver. I would also stipulate you can only use one active effect per the given time period. For those that are curious Baldur's Gate 3 has several examples of active effects attached to weapons, that is actually one way they tried to make weapons and martials more interesting.

Finally, I wouldn't restrict this to just martials, but just have them get it for free, while anyone else has to spend a feat, just like a the way fighting styles currently work. Maybe with a pre-req of having extra attack or an equivalent feature (so the gish subclasses have the option at least).

[PhoenixPhyre]

While I very much like the idea of making weapons more involved, and some level of mastery beyond basic proficiency, I wonder if this is only going half way there.

First, in terms of enabling the mastery I would think in terms of weapon groups instead of individual weapons.

Second, I would have the mastery contain both a passive and active effect. For the passive effects this seems like a good start, and some fighting style adaptations may work as well. For the active effect I would make it either once per short rest, or once per initiative roll, and probably on a power level similar to a battle master maneuver. I would also stipulate you can only use one active effect per the given time period. For those that are curious Baldur's Gate 3 has several examples of active effects attached to weapons, that is actually one way they tried to make weapons and martials more interesting.

Finally, I wouldn't restrict this to just martials, but just have them get it for free, while anyone else has to spend a feat, just like a the way fighting styles currently work.

I'm not trying to solve all the problems. Just iterative steps. In this case, just moving the concept behind the fighting styles into the weapons themselves (gated by class features, like fighting styles are) so that there's design space for new active abilities. In this case, since they're attached to weapons, any barbarian gets the properties of any weapon they pick up (as long as they're level 5+). They're agnostic in that regard. The actual class features would be more "personalized" to the class.

And personally, the whole "spend a feat to get someone else's cool thing" design is crap and encourages cherry-picking the "good parts" of other classes without taking the full package.

[Goobahfish]

Hmmm...

They do have the benefit of not being directly comparable and thus dependent on the DM distribution of enemies for balance.
+1 to hit is better vs high AC
+prof to adjacent better against mooks etc.

I think the only one I don't like is reliable. It feels too... reliable (sighs). Mostly I dislike the idea of guaranteed damage at all, let alone on a re-usable resource. There is some weirdness where a character with a D4-1 damage, might at level 5 actually always... do 3 damage? Balance-wise I think it is ok?

There is also probably room for a parry-centric weapon (i.e., +1 AC... although +1 AC might be too much). I always figured swords were more in this category.

For reference, this basically aligns with what I did in my 'more complex' system. It is sort of like that just in-built and (presumably) triggered off a common 'class ability'.

Modelling heavy club weapons is pretty hard in D&D as their main benefit is against 'armoured' foes which just isn't modelled meaningfully. Interestingly... this is reliable...

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hmmm...

They do have the benefit of not being directly comparable and thus dependent on the DM distribution of enemies for balance.
+1 to hit is better vs high AC
+prof to adjacent better against mooks etc.

I think the only one I don't like is reliable. It feels too... reliable (sighs). Mostly I dislike the idea of guaranteed damage at all, let alone on a re-usable resource. There is some weirdness where a character with a D4-1 damage, might at level 5 actually always... do 3 damage? Balance-wise I think it is ok?

There is also probably room for a parry-centric weapon (i.e., +1 AC... although +1 AC might be too much). I always figured swords were more in this category.

For reference, this basically aligns with what I did in my 'more complex' system. It is sort of like that just in-built and (presumably) triggered off a common 'class ability'.

Modelling heavy club weapons is pretty hard in D&D as their main benefit is against 'armoured' foes which just isn't modelled meaningfully. Interestingly... this is reliable...

They're loosely based on 4e weapon properties/feats, where the several of the "hammer type" groups got "does damage on miss" as a benefit.

My thinking was that (and this is aesthetically and thematically, not realistically)

* Slashy type things open wounds. Don't really help you hurt armored things though.
* Stabby type things can find gaps in armor (or tough scales, etc) better. So they're generally more "accurate" (likely to actually hit).
* Smashy type things still hurt even if they don't "hit"--deflecting a heavy hammer blow or a giant's club off your helmet is still going to make your head ring.
* Hacky-type things, thematically lend themselves to big sweeping blows.

Generally, the ones assigned Reliable are also lower damage dice with poorer qualities. Or just plain not chosen as much (everyone talks about greatsword vs greataxe...poor maul). And don't generally have nearly as much magic item support.

And against low-AC foes, Reliable ends up not doing much for you (you only miss rarely) while the others are always active. Conversely, it's way better against super high AC creatures or those pesky AC-stacked wizards casting shield.

[GeneralVryth]

I'm not trying to solve all the problems. Just iterative steps. In this case, just moving the concept behind the fighting styles into the weapons themselves (gated by class features, like fighting styles are) so that there's design space for new active abilities. In this case, since they're attached to weapons, any barbarian gets the properties of any weapon they pick up (as long as they're level 5+). They're agnostic in that regard. The actual class features would be more "personalized" to the class.

And personally, the whole "spend a feat to get someone else's cool thing" design is crap and encourages cherry-picking the "good parts" of other classes without taking the full package.

Then I think you are missing a trick here. Weapons are one of the most boring areas of 5e mechanically, and adding new active options (something Martials notoriously lack) to them are part of the effort of what seems to be to give them more flavor just feels natural.

Also, while I agree with you occasionally on things, I strongly disagree with your view of feats hear. The whole point of giving players different levels of of resources to spend constructing their characters (subclass picks, levels, feats) is to allow them to try and adjust the levers to as closely fit their ideal as possible. And frankly anything available to 6 classes should be accessible to all of them through feats (assuming they are something that can be balanced to the strength of a feat).

Anyways, on the actual abilities proposed so far, Arcing isn't as clean because it involves another DM interaction. The hallmark of good "passive" abilities (which the rest seem to fit in to) is minimizing DM interactions, otherwise you slow the game down.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Then I think you are missing a trick here. Weapons are one of the most boring areas of 5e mechanically, and adding new active options (something Martials notoriously lack) to them are part of the effort of what seems to be to give them more flavor just feels natural.

Also, while I agree with you occasionally on things, I strongly disagree with your view of feats hear. The whole point of giving players different levels of of resources to spend constructing their characters (subclass picks, levels, feats) is to allow them to try and adjust the levers to as closely fit their ideal as possible. And frankly anything available to 6 classes should be accessible to all of them through feats (assuming they are something that can be balanced to the strength of a feat).

Anyways, on the actual abilities proposed so far, Arcing isn't as clean because it involves another DM interaction. The hallmark of good "passive" abilities (which the rest seem to fit in to) is minimizing DM interactions, otherwise you slow the game down.

If I'm going to add more active options (which is intended), I prefer that they be class, rather than item bound. Why? Because binding them to items means anyone who picks up that weapon can suddenly do <thing>, as if the weapon itself is somehow teaching a technique. And that those techniques cannot be done at all if you're not wielding the weapon. It's "weapon as magic wand", something I dislike. And it actively discourages people from using different weapons lest they lose their "special skill" because they switched weapons (something already present in spades in the big weapon feats and fighting styles and something I strongly dislike and am trying to reduce in strength).

I want strong, unique classes. Build-a-bear is a pejorative in my mind, at least in a class-level system. Trying to emulate point-cost systems in class-level systems makes both work poorly. And that goes double or triple for "boring numeric boosts" which is what these mostly are. Because boring numeric boosts are both (a) quite valuable and (b) boring. Which makes offering them as feats (which are a sharply limited resource) do bad things (IMO)--It forces you to fit the power level to that of a feat. Which skews the system entirely. If they're non-fungible, guaranteed boosts, they can be whatever power is appropriate. But if they're using a fungible currency, they're competing against lots of more interesting things. Yet, as numeric boosts, tend to get disproportionately picked. Which means that now the game spirals--people are expected to pick up these numeric feats (at least by a lot of table culture), which means that opponents are calibrated against them. This acts as a tax. And taxes are bad. This is why I want to bake the big combat feats into the classes themselves as high(er) level class features specialized for that class's thematics.[1]

I strongly prefer a model where feats and all optional components act as horizontal scaling only. All the numeric or vertical boosts you can get should be fundamentally part of your base class decision. Multiclassing and other forms of "branching out" should broaden your capabilities...at the cost of vertical power.

As for Arcing, the other option is to just make it unconditional (ie you hit, someone else takes splash damage). But that opens up odd thematic interactions (chipping away at the heavily-armored guy by hitting the lightly-armored guy next to him). Generally, I've found that in most encounters the heavily armored ones are obvious, and hits/misses are usually unambiguous. So in the "happy paths", namely "clearing a horde of basically similar guys" and "attacking the big armored dude and chipping away at his hordes of minions", there's no extra interaction--in the first case, if it hits one, it hits the other because they're the same. In the second the same applies, because the big guy is harder to hit than any of his minions. It's only when the primary target is the lowest-armored one that you even have to ask, and then only if the total was somewhere in the "normal" range (ie 13-16). Which is fairly rare IMX. If you can come up with a better option that removes the ambiguity without opening new holes, I'm all ears.

[1] in the general case, but not this specific case, shared features accessible via feats also end up being way more generic. And generic is bad in a class-level system. Picking a class should be a major choice, one that shapes everything else you do and how you do it. Treating a class as just a grab back of fungible mechanics makes the whole thing not worth doing. If you want that, there are plenty of point-cost-based systems out there that do that.

[Samayu]

I'm curious about your class requirements. Why are rogues and monks on the list? Rogues have their own specific way of fighting (sneak attack), as do monks (monk weapons, martial arts damage). It seems odd to give them this martial training with mostly-martial weapons. Would it be better to say that anyone who has proficiency with all martial weapons can use these weapon properties? Or what about limiting the properties to martial weapons, and then allowing them to be used by anyone who is proficient in those weapons? Then there are just a few weapons (longsword, rapier, hand crossbow, shortsword) that the nonmartial classes (bard, monk, rogue) would gain use of the properties.


Also, while I agree with you occasionally on things, I strongly disagree with your view of feats hear. The whole point of giving players different levels of of resources to spend constructing their characters (subclass picks, levels, feats) is to allow them to try and adjust the levers to as closely fit their ideal as possible. And frankly anything available to 6 classes should be accessible to all of them through feats (assuming they are something that can be balanced to the strength of a feat).

"I've spent a lot of time with soldiers, and have picked up a trick or two." ...And spent an entire feat to do it. Personally, I think the whole class-based system is crap because no, you're a warlock. You can't possibly have learned how to use a sword.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm curious about your class requirements. Why are rogues and monks on the list? Rogues have their own specific way of fighting (sneak attack), as do monks (monk weapons, martial arts damage). It seems odd to give them this martial training with mostly-martial weapons. Would it be better to say that anyone who has proficiency with all martial weapons can use these weapon properties? Or what about limiting the properties to martial weapons, and then allowing them to be used by anyone who is proficient in those weapons? Then there are just a few weapons (longsword, rapier, hand crossbow, shortsword) that the nonmartial classes (bard, monk, rogue) would gain use of the properties.


Rogues and monks were included so they wouldn't feel left out :smallwink:. The point is to keep this a non-primary-spell-caster thing (hence the "gated by a level 5 feature" part). Bards are too busy training with their songs and spells to pick up the finer points of weapon handling. Making it just require proficiency makes it way too easy to pick up with a feat or a single level dip. These are supposed to be cool things, not "eh, I picked it up one day when I decided I suddenly was a master of weapons as well as a master of spells."

Also, some of the weapons (esp hand crossbows) are super thematic for rogues. So leaving them out reduces the thematicity of this, which is one of the more important things.



"I've spent a lot of time with soldiers, and have picked up a trick or two." ...And spent an entire feat to do it. Personally, I think the whole class-based system is crap because no, you're a warlock. You can't possibly have learned how to use a sword.

Other systems are over there <points>. Seriously, if you don't like class based, D&D is likely not the game for you. It's defined in large part by being class/level based. And strong archetypes are how class/level systems work best--trying to shoehorn a point-based system (yes, including feats as they're normally used) into a class-based system just makes it all break down. Why? Because each feat costs the same as any other feat. Yet have radically different, radically situational value. Fixed, fungible cost, widely-varying value is not a good recipe for a coherent system. Real point-based systems have varying costs, prerequisites, and other forms of balance. But you don't have enough feat choices for chains to be anything other than traps in 5e. It's part of why non-level-gated "menu-based" class features like the battle master fighter's maneuvers don't work as well as hoped--sure, you get more choices. But you've already picked your favorites, so definitionally the later ones are worth less than the previous ones.

[GeneralVryth]

If I'm going to add more active options (which is intended), I prefer that they be class, rather than item bound. Why? Because binding them to items means anyone who picks up that weapon can suddenly do <thing>, as if the weapon itself is somehow teaching a technique. And that those techniques cannot be done at all if you're not wielding the weapon. It's "weapon as magic wand", something I dislike. And it actively discourages people from using different weapons lest they lose their "special skill" because they switched weapons (something already present in spades in the big weapon feats and fighting styles and something I strongly dislike and am trying to reduce in strength).

But weapons can do things. Think about it, the whole point of the large variety of weapons in the real world is different weapons have different abilities, strengths, and weaknesses. You don't set a broadsword against a charge, you don't try and trip someone with an escrima stick, you don't use a longspear up close. Weapons enable certain kinds of attacks, but you need to know what you are doing with the weapon to take full advantage of it.



I want strong, unique classes. Build-a-bear is a pejorative in my mind, at least in a class-level system. Trying to emulate point-cost systems in class-level systems makes both work poorly. And that goes double or triple for "boring numeric boosts" which is what these mostly are. Because boring numeric boosts are both (a) quite valuable and (b) boring. Which makes offering them as feats (which are a sharply limited resource) do bad things (IMO)--It forces you to fit the power level to that of a feat. Which skews the system entirely. If they're non-fungible, guaranteed boosts, they can be whatever power is appropriate. But if they're using a fungible currency, they're competing against lots of more interesting things. Yet, as numeric boosts, tend to get disproportionately picked. Which means that now the game spirals--people are expected to pick up these numeric feats (at least by a lot of table culture), which means that opponents are calibrated against them. This acts as a tax. And taxes are bad. This is why I want to bake the big combat feats into the classes themselves as high(er) level class features specialized for that class's thematics.[1]

I strongly prefer a model where feats and all optional components act as horizontal scaling only. All the numeric or vertical boosts you can get should be fundamentally part of your base class decision. Multiclassing and other forms of "branching out" should broaden your capabilities...at the cost of vertical power.

The last 2.5? 3? editions of D&D (not to mention at least 2 different Star Wars RPGs) tend to disagree with this. There is a reason feats have stuck around. Having general customization ability unbound by class that is smaller than a level is useful. Also, how is a caster becoming at best decent with a weapon vertical scaling? That is a perfect example of horizontal scaling, they are not getting stronger at what they are good at (increasing their primary caster score, or getting something like spell sniper or war caster), they are instead choosing not to do that, and are branching out to become better with a weapon (and one that probably plays to the characters identity). At the end of the day a Bladesinger or War Bard are still never going to be better than a Fighter or Barbarian in martial combat. They can use their spells to temporarily make things equal or gain a slight edge, but that isn't just martial combat anymore, that's all out combat (or war).

I do agree on the boring numeric boost point, but then I was talking about a passive, and more importantly an active ability.



As for Arcing, the other option is to just make it unconditional (ie you hit, someone else takes splash damage). But that opens up odd thematic interactions (chipping away at the heavily-armored guy by hitting the lightly-armored guy next to him). Generally, I've found that in most encounters the heavily armored ones are obvious, and hits/misses are usually unambiguous. So in the "happy paths", namely "clearing a horde of basically similar guys" and "attacking the big armored dude and chipping away at his hordes of minions", there's no extra interaction--in the first case, if it hits one, it hits the other because they're the same. In the second the same applies, because the big guy is harder to hit than any of his minions. It's only when the primary target is the lowest-armored one that you even have to ask, and then only if the total was somewhere in the "normal" range (ie 13-16). Which is fairly rare IMX. If you can come up with a better option that removes the ambiguity without opening new holes, I'm all ears.

You make a good point here, and I am not sure I have a better idea. You do also have another thematic problem though. If you are shooting a bow at someone 60 feet in front of you, "another character in reach" could be one 60 feet to your left, but it doesn't make sense to "hit" them on a "missed" shot. Perhaps a better feature would be something like "Keyholing". "When make an attack choose another target adjacent to the first, if you attack roll would hit them as well they take X damage." This makes the whole attack process as a single DM interaction, instead of a check and then re-check.



[1] in the general case, but not this specific case, shared features accessible via feats also end up being way more generic. And generic is bad in a class-level system. Picking a class should be a major choice, one that shapes everything else you do and how you do it. Treating a class as just a grab back of fungible mechanics makes the whole thing not worth doing. If you want that, there are plenty of point-cost-based systems out there that do that.

I am not sure I agree with this argument. How is choosing a Fighting Style via a feat any more generic than a class getting it at level up? Or selecting a Metamagic option, or Battlemaster Maneuver, or Warlock Eldritch Invocation? Those don't feel generic, in fact they usually come as either having picked up a trick along the way, or having found a way to use or express an in-born ability. Looking at the PHB the most generic feats in my mind are Resilient, Skilled, and Weapon Master, all 3 just giving passive (numeric) bonuses nothing tied to any specific class.

[CTurbo]

I really liked how 4e handled weapon properties, but no doubt it was a lot to keep up with, and I can understand why 5e wanted to simplify things.

I also liked how different weapons had different proficiency bonuses, but your proposed "Accurate" property functions the same.

I especially liked 4e's High Crit, Brutal, and defensive properties.

A High Crit 1d10 sword would deal max+1d10 on a crit so anywhere from 11-20+str/dex

Brutal 1 would reroll a 1 until it was higher. That could slow down the game so I'd replace it with taking the average rounded up on a 1. Rolling a 1 on a Brutal 1 1d10 weapon would become a 6.



I like your Arcing and Reliable properties, but they damage would need to be low. Like equal to proficiency bonus

2 damage at levels 1 through 4,
3 damage at levels 5 through 8,
4 damage at levels 9 through 12,
5 damage at levels 13 through 16,
6 damage at levels 17 through 20

[PhoenixPhyre]

You make a good point here, and I am not sure I have a better idea. You do also have another thematic problem though. If you are shooting a bow at someone 60 feet in front of you, "another character in reach" could be one 60 feet to your left, but it doesn't make sense to "hit" them on a "missed" shot. Perhaps a better feature would be something like "Keyholing". "When make an attack choose another target adjacent to the first, if you attack roll would hit them as well they take X damage." This makes the whole attack process as a single DM interaction, instead of a check and then re-check.
.

Going to leave the rest to just disagreements about the fundamental nature of things.

But as for this...arcing applies to axe-type weapons. So melee. Not any weapon. And you're only rolling once with arcing--all you're doing is saying "ok, I want to target that guy and splash to the other. Do I hit?" I'm not so fond of requiring them to be adjacent, since it dramatically decreases the utility. It's why acid splash isn't very good--it's rare that you have targets reliably next to each other. Conceptually, this is wide carving sweeps and spins (as unrealistic as that is, but this is fantasy).


I really liked how 4e handled weapon properties, but no doubt it was a lot to keep up with, and I can understand why 5e wanted to simplify things.

I also liked how different weapons had different proficiency bonuses, but your proposed "Accurate" property functions the same.

I especially liked 4e's High Crit, Brutal, and defensive properties.

A High Crit 1d10 sword would deal max+1d10 on a crit so anywhere from 11-20+str/dex

Brutal 1 would reroll a 1 until it was higher. That could slow down the game so I'd replace it with taking the average rounded up on a 1. Rolling a 1 on a Brutal 1 1d10 weapon would become a 6.



I like your Arcing and Reliable properties, but they damage would need to be low. Like equal to proficiency bonus

2 damage at levels 1 through 4,
3 damage at levels 5 through 8,
4 damage at levels 9 through 12,
5 damage at levels 13 through 16,
6 damage at levels 17 through 20

About arcing and reliable--see one of my later posts where I redo it based on proficiency. Reliable is half-proficiency, arcing is full proficiency. Based on some numerical work done on a different site, Wounding needs some work. I think that idea of a brutal (on a 1, take average damage for that die rounded up) might work, if limited to 1 die per turn. That's

Base Die average added damage per hit
1d4 | 0.5 (1/4 * 2 extra)
1d6 | 0.5 (1/6 * 3 extra)
1d8 | 0.5 (1/8 * 4 extra)
1d10 | 0.5 (1/10 * 5 extra)
1d12 | 0.5 (1/12 * 6 extra)
2d6 | 0.5 (same as 1d6 due to the 1/turn limits)

Assuming a 65% hit rate and two attacks, that's 0.65 added DPR (not counting for crits because I'm lazy). That's similar to the others. Less damage than arcing, but arcing is situational. More damage than reliable, but doesn't give you the backstop of always doing damage. And doesn't help you land that big sneak attack/smite like accurate. Much better than the (with a d10 weapon) 0.07 DPR it was as written.

[Kurt Kurageous]

What I'm missing is the fundamental "what."

Please state the problem that exists in the game that this will fix. Then we can talk about how effective we think the fix is.

I'm not trying to gainsay. I'm genuinely exited about ideas that can close the gap between martials and casters. My proposition was to reclass all weapon damage by class, where the core rules are weapon damage die 2h = hit die of class, damage die 1h or propertied with ranged/thrown/light = next die down from hit die of class.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What I'm missing is the fundamental "what."

Please state the problem that exists in the game that this will fix. Then we can talk about how effective we think the fix is.

I'm not trying to gainsay. I'm genuinely exited about ideas that can close the gap between martials and casters. My proposition was to reclass all weapon damage by class, where the core rules are weapon damage die 2h = hit die of class, damage die 1h or propertied with ranged/thrown/light = next die down from hit die of class.

Not all things are "fixes" to problems. Sometimes they're just adjustments to things that mostly already work because they might fit better.

In this case, the goal is to differentiate otherwise "identical" (other than damage type) weapons
a) in a way that doesn't produce a "best weapon" for all circumstances
b) and that generally helps martials more than casters
c) and in a minimal, mostly passive way.
d) and in keeping with the tropes and fictional archetypes attendant in those weapons.

There is no expectation that this is some kind of comprehensive "fix" to martials vs casters. Or even a significant change to that relative balance[1]. Or a total overhaul of weapons. It's more...moving the current boring numerical bonus Fighting Styles (plus some) into the weapons to allow more creative space in the classes themselves for interesting active abilities.

Overall, I prefer small tinkering around the edges incremental changes to fundamental overhauls where possible. Because they can be tested in isolation. Trying to, say, redo all the weapon damage by class means redoing everything to fit. And runs into big thematic issues in my mind.

[1] because, for me personally, martials are +- in the right ballpark and casters[2], generally, are too high. And damage isn't where the main discrepancies of interest lie. So fixing the discrepancy by simply piling more damage onto martials (a) doesn't actually address the root cause of the issue and (b) moves everyone outside of the game's "expected" range. Instead, a proper fix would involve taming casters so they're all roughly similar to the PHB sorcerer or pre-hexblade warlock.

[2] the exceptions being the PHB sorcerer and pre-hexblade warlock. Bards are significantly too capable in many ways, mostly due to Magical Secrets and being treated as a "semi-martial" despite being a full caster. One of those needs to change. Clerics are mostly ok[3], but only because their list is so thematically narrow. That's an unstable state. Wizards, Tasha's warlocks and sorcerers, plus hexblade are just well outside the bounds of what the game expects or intends. And getting worse with every book published. That last part is the real kicker--casters scale intrinsically whenever a new book is published, because new books contain spells. Martials generally only benefit irregularly--if there's a new feat or (rarely) a new magic item. And those are in high competition for limited number of slots, when spells are just "yoink, new power".

[3] barring the Tasha's subclasses, which are stupidly absurdly borked power-wise. And anti-thematic in the extreme for Twilight, which has negative thematic coherence. It's just a pile of "hey, let's give them shiny cool things".

[Goobahfish]

What I'm missing is the fundamental "what."

Please state the problem that exists in the game that this will fix. Then we can talk about how effective we think the fix is.

I'm not trying to gainsay. I'm genuinely exited about ideas that can close the gap between martials and casters. My proposition was to reclass all weapon damage by class, where the core rules are weapon damage die 2h = hit die of class, damage die 1h or propertied with ranged/thrown/light = next die down from hit die of class.

Well, I would say one of the problems that exist for martial characters is that the 'toolbox' of weapons isn't a toolbox at all. Historically most soldiers carried a variety of weapons depending on task. Lance, sword, shield, dagger, warhammer etc. There were choices of weapons and D&D never, ever incentivises the use of any of these weapons on a character.

Some of this comes down to D&D not modelling armour correctly. Having weapons which ignore armour and armour being damage reduction immediately incentivises some weapons for lightly armoured foes and others for heavily armoured foes. I think Phoenix is trying to give martial classes a meaningful mechanical decision point (rather than a purely aesthetic decision).

---



* Slashy type things open wounds. Don't really help you hurt armored things though.
* Stabby type things can find gaps in armor (or tough scales, etc) better. So they're generally more "accurate" (likely to actually hit).
* Smashy type things still hurt even if they don't "hit"--deflecting a heavy hammer blow or a giant's club off your helmet is still going to make your head ring.
* Hacky-type things, thematically lend themselves to big sweeping blows.


Yeah. I think you are making the 'best of a bad situation'. Fortunately, stabby things are also pretty good at hitting 'jump around agile' folk with high AC (because they are light) whereas Smashy things are terrible at hitting pigeons and other high AC agile things. I think this is a 'look the other' way moment because I don't think there is anything you can do with Smashy things in the D&D AC framework.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah. I think you are making the 'best of a bad situation'. Fortunately, stabby things are also pretty good at hitting 'jump around agile' folk with high AC (because they are light) whereas Smashy things are terrible at hitting pigeons and other high AC agile things. I think this is a 'look the other' way moment because I don't think there is anything you can do with Smashy things in the D&D AC framework.

It's important to note that I'm not looking at realism at all. Realism can go hang for all I care. What I care about are tropes and archetypes. And doing so without trying to rewrite the whole AC/HP/combat system. Because I got games to run and for my (limited) purposes it works just fine as it is.

[Kurt Kurageous]

What's making this hard (first things that came to me):

1. Abstraction of HP must be set aside to consider anything about any damage.

2. Damage reduction from armor is almost nonexistent in 5e. Could we bring it back and relate it ONLY to nonmagical BLU PIE SLA damage?

I know this isn't particularly on point as I am addressing the issue not from the weapon side, but from the armor side of things.

Proposal one.
"KISS" Heavy and medium armor grants DR equal to proficiency bonus. HAM feat grants double the bonus (expertise).

Proposal two. "Fiddly BLU"
Proficient BLU weapons attack target's unarmored AC + shield. This allows BLU (and only BLU) to hurt regardless of armor. The armor still matters, so...

Proposal three. "Fiddly Return of DR"
Proficiently worn armor grants DR vs nonmagical BLU PIE SLA damage equal to the AC of the armor minus 13. This grants scale, breastplate, and ring mail a DR of 1, half plate a DR of 2, etc. up to a 5 point DR for plate. HAM feat would add to this DR, making the feat grant a DR of 8 in plate, less in lower armor. This would also cover the limited effectiveness of certain kinds of armor versus PIE and SLA simply by making the DR zero as opposed to increasing the weapons effectiveness.

Proposal four. "DR for all Creatures"
Natural armor grants DR equal to monster's AC minus 15 for all nonmagical BLU PIE SLA damage and ignores "Fiddly BLU" proposal.

Yes, this definitely needs playtesting and jacks with CR calculations. Given the imminent end of official 5e rulemaking, so what?

[PhoenixPhyre]

What's making this hard (first things that came to me):

1. Abstraction of HP. It's got to be set aside to consider anything about damage.

2. Damage reduction from armor is almost nonexistent beyond HAM. Could we bring it back and relate it ONLY to nonmagical BLU PIE SLA damage?

Proposal one. BLU weapons vs armor. Proficient BLU weapons attack target's unarmored AC + shield. This allows BLU to harm through armor. This leads to...

Proposal two. Armor granting DR. Proficiently worn armor grants DR vs nonmagical BPS equal to the AC of the armor minus 13. This grants scale, breastplate, and ring mail a DR of 1, half plate a DR of 2, etc. up to a 5 point DR for plate. HAM feat would add to this DR, making the feat grant a DR of 8 in plate, less in lower armor. This would also cover the limited effectiveness of certain kinds of armor versus PIE and SLA simply by making the DR zero as opposed to increasing the weapons effectiveness.

Where this might break down is natural armor. To keep things simple, one could simply grant DR as above (AC-13=DR) and ignore the BLU proposal entirely.

Proposal three. KISS DR. Heavy and medium armor grants DR equal to proficiency bonus. HAM feat grants double the bonus (expertise).

Any change to the overall weapon damage types and their interaction with armor is stupidly prone to "ok, now the system is completely broken and needs a rewrite from the ground up."

DR, especially, has lots of bad failure modes. Many small attacks vs one big attack, scaling things correctly (especially when monsters are considered), etc. It also adds tons of complexity at run-time[1].

Beyond all that, it's way out of scope for what's designed to be a small, system-compatible change. It might be a decent idea, but it's completely off topic here.

[1] Especially when you have multiple damage types in a single attack, which happens at quite low levels. Resistance and vulnerability already are substantially annoying and slow the game down because now you have to keep all your damage types separate and ask every time "does X matter?" instead of just rolling all the dice together. Personally, I'm moving away from resistance/vulnerability as a monster option and simply doing invulnerability where it should really thematically matter and adjusting HP directly instead. Or having conditions triggered on taking damage of X type (cf the various golems). The game (increased fidelity) is not worth the candle (the overhead and bookkeeping).

[Amechra]

Some of this comes down to D&D not modelling armour correctly.

I'd argue that D&D models armor quite nicely... with the caveat that their goal is making people look like their archetype rather than realism.

That said... I did fiddle with something you might be interested in a while ago (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612013-Armor-Hit-Dice-PEACH).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd argue that D&D models armor quite nicely... with the caveat that their goal is making people look like their archetype rather than realism.


And that, to me, is the unifying feature of everything D&D does well. It emulates the archetypes, not reality. Appeals to realism will always leave me cold; same with appeals to historicity or complaints about anachronisms.

Realism, well, sucks. The real world is realistic, and I want to play and think about a fantasy world that, well, isn't the real world. And tropes and archetypes keep the essentials of realism, while giving enough of an escape to allow the fantastic to occur. I want the shirtless barbarian whose skin is tough enough (while raging) to turn axes. I want the fighter to parry the giant's club without getting crushed or swatted aside. I want the characters who, at higher powers, can take that damage. I also want the rogue to be able to stab the giant to death with his daggers that probably (realistically) couldn't pierce the dead layer of skin, let alone the fat underneath.

Realism sucks. Give me archetypes every day and twice a day on game days.

D&D is not the real world; its history, underlying physics, and basic operating principles are very different. So in that context, realism is unrealistic.

[Rukelnikov]

I'm contemplating adding "martial only" weapon properties, moving the "bare numbers boost" from fighting styles into the weapons themselves (but only for martial types). Barbarians, fighters, rogues, paladins, rangers, and monks get a level 5 feature that "turns on" the special properties of certain weapons.

The big ones are
Accurate: Add +1 to the attack roll.
Arcing (X): When you hit with an attack and there is an enemy within your reach that the original attack roll would hit, that other creature takes X damage.
Reliable (X): When you miss with an attack, the target takes X damage regardless.
Wounding (X): When you hit with an attack, turn any die result lower than X into X (so Wounding (2) would turn any 1s into 2s and Wounding (3) would turn 1s and 2s into 3s).

Are they roughly on par one with another for similar values of X (X for wounding has to be bigger than for the others to get any effect, so Wounding(2) is supposed to be similar to Reliable (1))?

What do you mean by roughly on par? Aside from arcing, the others aren't very hard to compare mathematically, though it would take some work to adjust the values

Standard Damage = P(Hit) * AvgDamage

Accurate Damage ~= (P(Hit)+0.05) * AvgDamage ==> Extra 0.05 * AvgDamage (Breaks on the borders or outside of the bounds of the die)

Reliable(x) Damage = P(Hit) * AvgDamage + (1-P(Hit)) * x ==> Extra (1-P(Hit)) * x

Wounding(x,s) Damage = P(Hit) * AvgDamage + P(Hit) * x*(x-1)/2s ==> Extra P(Hit) * x*(x-1)/2s

s = sides on the damage die.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What do you mean by roughly on par? Aside from arcing, the others aren't very hard to compare mathematically, though it would take some work to adjust the values

Standard Damage = P(Hit) * AvgDamage

Accurate Damage ~= (P(Hit)+0.05) * AvgDamage ==> Extra 0.05 * AvgDamage (Breaks on the borders or outside of the bounds of the die)

Reliable(x) Damage = P(Hit) * AvgDamage + (1-P(Hit)) * x ==> Extra (1-P(Hit)) * x

Wounding(x,s) Damage = P(Hit) * AvgDamage + P(Hit) * x*(x-1)/2s ==> Extra P(Hit) * x*(x-1)/2s

s = sides on the damage die.

I mean "would you be willing to take any of them, or is there one that dominates/is dominated by the others." Not even strictly mechanically--doing everything with averages loses a lot of information and is very situational. It also ignores appearance, which is more important than strict numerical balance--two things may be statistically equal but feel very differently-powered. And that appearance is reality in a TTRPG. The fact is that numbers matter way less than we like to think. But how it feels is always relevant.

[Theodoxus]

It's important to note that I'm not looking at realism at all. Realism can go hang for all I care. What I care about are tropes and archetypes. And doing so without trying to rewrite the whole AC/HP/combat system. Because I got games to run and for my (limited) purposes it works just fine as it is.

This is how I feel too, though I went in the opposite direction and modified armor (which I totally get is exactly what you're trying to avoid).

My whole defensive side is based loosely on Star Wars Saga (d20) edition. Everyone has a base Defense (10+Dex in 5E parlance). Some things modify that, like shield bonuses and defensive feats. Your Defense is the floor for an attack to hit you.

Armor provides a bonus to your Defense called Armor Rating. It basically aligns with the AC bonus provided by 5E armor (so, leather would be +1, Plate would be +8. Anything that hits between your Defense and your Armor Rating damages your armor. Armor also has "Armor Hit Points" ranging from 30 to 120 depending on type (magic can boost that as well). Then, I have a rock-paper-scissors style of weapon damage types against basic armor types (light / medium / heavy) since I've updated them based on materials used. Light is cloth and leather, so they're vulnerable to slashing and resistant to piercing. Medium is chain or leather backed by metal (rings, scales, etc) so vulnerable to bludgeoning and resistant to piercing. Heavy is plate, so vulnerable to bludgeoning and resistant to slashing.

In play, it's been a little complicated, so I offer it as an option to players, but I primarily use it on armor using NPCs. I take a typical 5E stat block, generate the Defense and Armor Rating, then divide their HP in half and use one half for the AHP (instead of generating a list of AHP for monster armor) and the other half for their physical HP. This speeds up combat significantly, as any hit over their AR goes straight to HP (as usual). So, if every hit goes against armor, it takes about as long as a normal game, since it's chewing through the normal number of hit points (modified slightly by weapon damage type), but anything that exceeds the armor is going against only half the number of hit points.

Modifying monsters on the fly is pretty quick and easy; the only slight drag on the game as the DM is the weapon damage against armor. But provided players aren't swapping out weapons round to round, it hasn't been a chore.

I could easily take these weapon mods and incorporate them. I've already been toying with 3E.X style features, like Keen and crit ranges.

[Rukelnikov]

I mean "would you be willing to take any of them, or is there one that dominates/is dominated by the others." Not even strictly mechanically--doing everything with averages loses a lot of information and is very situational. It also ignores appearance, which is more important than strict numerical balance--two things may be statistically equal but feel very differently-powered. And that appearance is reality in a TTRPG. The fact is that numbers matter way less than we like to think. But how it feels is always relevant.

Accurate does nothing special but its pretty good, and serves as an easy point of comparison for the rest.

Reliable, I think PB is the minimum value where I'd consider it, and even then I probably wouldn't go for it, but because of preference not because of a perceived underpoweredness.

Wounding would have to be half the die size to consider it, and again it would depend on a lot of factors, I'd take a Wounding 3 weapon if the property applies to extra damage dice from Sneak Attack for example, and I'd consider a Wounding 3 Greatsword if GWM is not on the table.

Arcing I'd likely never take unless its damage was high enough to be a legit area damage weapon (regular attack damage, maybe remove stat mod alla TWF), I've never used Slashing Flourish, never taken Sweeping Attack, and while I've used GFB, I usually went for BB.

[stoutstien]

I think wounding is the only one that would lag behind unless you are redoing some of the weapons I have multiple dice.

Maybe treat low rolls as max value instead of just up one? So a d4 would be 4 2 3 4.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think wounding is the only one that would lag behind unless you are redoing some of the weapons I have multiple dice.

Maybe treat low rolls as max value instead of just up one? So a d4 would be 4 2 3 4.

I agree. In fact, I posted as much in an earlier post...and then forgot to update the OP with a new version.

But yeah, that's my current plan. It seems to provide an even 0.5 DPH (damage per hit) regardless of weapon size (restricting it to one of the dice so that the 2d6 weapons don't get twice as much benefit).

So the new Wounding property is

Wounding: When you hit with a weapon attack using this weapon, you can treat a one on the weapon's dice rolls as the average value of that die, rounded up. That is, treat a 1 on a d4 as a 3, a 1 on a d6 as a 4, a 1 on a d8 as a 5, a 1 on a d10 as a 6, a 1 on a d12 as a 7. Only one die per attack can be modified, so rolling a 1 and a 1 on 2d6 results in a total of 5 and 1, for 6 total.

The second sentence there and the explanation are for clarity, since not everyone can do "what is the average rounded up" in their heads.

[Theodoxus]

I'd argue that D&D models armor quite nicely... with the caveat that their goal is making people look like their archetype rather than realism.

That said... I did fiddle with something you might be interested in a while ago (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612013-Armor-Hit-Dice-PEACH).

Wow, I kinda wish I could reply to that thread, but threadomancy... There's some very interesting takes (including something very close to what I suggested in this thread, that I didn't see originally because I took like 4 hours to complete my post above). But I'm definitely going to modify my own homebrew with concepts from that thread.


I agree. In fact, I posted as much in an earlier post...and then forgot to update the OP with a new version.

But yeah, that's my current plan. It seems to provide an even 0.5 DPH (damage per hit) regardless of weapon size (restricting it to one of the dice so that the 2d6 weapons don't get twice as much benefit).

So the new Wounding property is

Wounding: When you hit with a weapon attack using this weapon, you can treat a one on the weapon's dice rolls as the average value of that die, rounded up. That is, treat a 1 on a d4 as a 3, a 1 on a d6 as a 4, a 1 on a d8 as a 5, a 1 on a d10 as a 6, a 1 on a d12 as a 7. Only one die per attack can be modified, so rolling a 1 and a 1 on 2d6 results in a total of 5 and 1, for 6 total.

The second sentence there and the explanation are for clarity, since not everyone can do "what is the average rounded up" in their heads.

I like this a lot better. I was a little worried about turning a 1 to it's maximum value, d4 daggers just became god weapons, with a 50% change of dealing max damage with it (kind of reminds me of a 5E-esque version of that silly infinite damage from the Tome of Battle in 3rd Ed with the d2 maximized, rolling max damage gives you another attack loop thing).

But at least a 50% chance to deal 3 points isn't quite top tier ;) And of course, the bigger the die, the smaller the benefit from Wounding, but it feels better to deal 7 points instead of 1 when rolling a 1 using a greataxe.

[stoutstien]

I'm all for this.

It's surprisingly close to my weapon tags/features/effects.

- heavy weapons - deal damage even on missed attacks as long as they clear a certain AC. Bigger weapons have lower AC thresholds and higher minimum damage. *Shields can stop this once per round*

- Piercing - if you roll X or more total they deal extra damage. Found on weapons that can find gaps in armor or hit vital areas in a single blow. *Trade off is it's found in weapons that usually have a lower base damage, some NPCs just don't have vitals to hit, and some armor has immunity unless they are restrained, grappled, or otherwise unable to react.*

- vicious - deal a ton of extra damage if the target is unaware of the theat. Dagger, hand crossbows, fist weapons, and other easily concealed options have this. Also bypass armor completely if you have enough set up time.*all the plate I the world won't stop a dagger in the eye*

Have a handful of "special* tags for regional weapons like man catchers and the like but the three above can mix n match to make dozens of weapons.

[Amechra]

And that, to me, is the unifying feature of everything D&D does well. It emulates the archetypes, not reality.

I kinda agree, except that I'd argue a bit with saying that D&D does those things well... because they're usually held back by crufty stuff that modern D&D imported semi-mindlessly from earlier editions (which had a wildly different playstyle).

Like, arguably what 5e wants is to just do something like this:



Class
Class AC
Shield-OK
Heavy-OK
Ward-OK


Barbarian
10+Con
Yes
No
No


Bard
12
No
No
No


Cleric
13
Yes
No
No


Druid
13
Yes
No
No


Fighter
14
Yes
Yes
No


Monk
11+Wis*
No
No
No


Paladin
14
Yes
Yes
No


Ranger
14
Yes
No
No


Rogue
12
No
No
No


Sorcerer
10
No
No
Yes


Warlock
12
No
No
No


Wizard
10
No
No
Yes




Add Dexterity to your Class AC to get your actual AC.
Shield-OK classes let you use a shield for +2 AC (giving up a hand).
Heavy-OK classes let you wear heavy armor, which lets you use Strength instead of Dexterity for AC. Some magic armor (like adamantine armor) is only available as heavy armor.
Ward-OK gives you Shield for free (and the spell is gone from spell lists).
If some feature would grant a class medium armor proficiency, they get +1 AC and their Class AC becomes Shield-OK instead.
If some feature would grant a class heavy armor proficiency, they get +1 AC and their Class AC becomes Heavy-OK instead.
Monks are special, because they can't use any magic armor.


But it doesn't do this, because having an overly-long list of equipment that people cherry-pick the best options off of is a very D&D.